Neville Chamberlain, without the umbrella
posted at 10:00 am on May 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
After the win in North Carolina, Barack Obama fulminated about what the victory meant for America. On foreign policy, Obama said, it was a recognition that the US should talk to its enemies, in the same manner as FDR, Truman, and Kennedy did. At the time, I noted the strange claim and its complete ignorance of history, and today, Jack Kelly continues the history lesson for a constitutional scholar who clearly skipped 20th-century history:
I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
When Stalin’s designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman’s response wasn’t to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.
Given the importance that Obama places on this approach to foreign policy — he seldom fails to mention it as an example of the “change” he’ll bring to Washington — one wonders why the media hasn’t pressed him on this rationalization. Obama isn’t merely saying that he’ll reinstitute diplomatic relations with Iran, which would emulate our relations with the Nazis and the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. Obama wants to have meetings without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has publicly spoken of his desire to annihilate a key ally of the US, as well as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and any number of thugs and tyrants. When did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy do that? Answer: never.
As I pointed out on Wednesday, even diplomatic contact didn’t help FDR with Japan and Germany. The Japanese used diplomatic negotiations as a stalling maneuver to get its Imperial Navy in place to destroy our Pacific Fleet in 1941. Our diplomatic relations with the Nazis only encouraged America Firsters and Nazi sympathizers like Charles Lindbergh to claim that Hitler had no animus towards the West and that he could be a bulwark against Bolshevism.
Maybe Obama could ask the Czechs how well unconditional talks worked for them during Munich. Neville Chamberlain insisted on holding peace talks to avoid war in Czechoslovakia, which could have defended itself as long as it held the fortifications in the Sudetenland long enough for Britain and France to beat Germany from the rear. Instead, Chamberlain carved up Czechoslovakia without its permission, and six months afterward, Hitler swallowed the rest of it whole. FDR, meanwhile, remained steadfastly neutral diplomatically until 1939, when he began clandestine support for the UK.
Negotiations with tyrants almost always leads to appeasement, which only postpones war until the tyrant is strong enough to wage it most effectively. It results in many more deaths and far more destruction because it gives the initiative and the timing to the tyrants, while building their credibility at home. William Shirer noted that the Germans were astounded when Hitler repeatedly bluffed the West during the years from 1935 to 1939, figuring each bluff would be called and Hitler destroyed as a political force. By the time he rolled into Poland unopposed except by the outmatched Poles, who expected actual military assistance from Britain and France, Germans would follow Hitler anywhere, convinced of his invincibility.
That’s what Obama’s “new approach” to foreign policy promises. It’s Neville Chamberlain without the umbrella. It certainly isn’t FDR or Truman.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
What will our savior save?
mymanpotsandpans on May 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Because the media is largely composed of idiots who don’t understand the dangers of the world we live in.
backwoods conservative on May 9, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Certainly there are some of those – idiots who don’t understand the dangesrs of the world we live in – but there are many more in the media who understand exactly what kind of a world we live in, and are still blind to the threats.
Those are the ones that scare me. We should whip them ritually.
Jaibones on May 9, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I’d love to read the whole thing, but the link goes to your screencap.
Typhoon on May 9, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Never bring
a knifeyour mouth to a gun fight.fogw on May 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM
23 years of history lessons from Rev.Wright have convinced Obambi that when the chickens come home to roost promise one for every pot and you can walk into the W.H.
sheriff246 on May 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Radical Islam?
kcd on May 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
I have no HOPE that anything will CHANGE. It’s Jimmy Carter 2.0, baby. That’s what we’re up against.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
A fine post, Ed. It would be wonderful if it could be printed off,handed to Obama for comment and clarification of his remarks. No wiggle room. No “I wasn’t present when those…”
Instead, Obama should read and respond under the glare of television cameras. This man wants to lead our country; does he know where we’ve been?
Doug on May 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Change!
29Victor on May 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM
To be fair, you should at least discuss the Cold War as well. It is conspicuously absent from both this and your previous post.
tneloms on May 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM
In defense of Chamberlain, at least when war came, he supported it 100%.
Obama on the other hand would keep waffling, attack after attack.
Tim Burton on May 9, 2008 at 10:21 AM
For those interested, here’s a link to the fully article.
amerpundit on May 9, 2008 at 10:21 AM
His stated reason for doing that, in one of the debates in which he was most pressed on the issue, was that to hold a Presidential meeting as contingent upon actions by the likes of these guys was to foster the impression of “American exceptionalism.”
I wish, wish, wish the McCain camp or someone on the right would dig up that quote and beat him about the head and shoulders with it. Hillary didn’t at the time. She let it slide right on by.
But someone needs to ask him now. “Just what do you mean by that? Do you think America is not exceptional? Do you think we’re on an even level with Iran and Cuba and North Korea?
If not, then just what exactly are your vies on the subject?”
Typhoon on May 9, 2008 at 10:22 AM
In spite of all his wealth, George Soros has not yet owned a whole country . Yes we can!
a capella on May 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Which is exactly what Dinner Jacket wants, in order that his Mahdi can show up.
MadisonConservative on May 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I agree. The Czechs had a good, well equipped military in 1938. With the political will, the Czechs and Poles from the east and France from the west along with RN and RAF involvement could have put Grmany away in 1938.
BTW, the Czech tanks (model 1935 and 1938) that Hitler was handed in 1938 came in real handy when he invaded Poland, France and Russia. Even in 1940, the majority of German tanks with 37mm guns were Czech 35t and 38t. The famous photo of Rommel “wetting his boots” in the English Channel shows the Czech tanks his division had been using in the background. I think his “Ghost Division” was equipped almost entirely with these models. They later upgraded them to the nasty little “Hetzer” SP 75mm guns and used them to the end of the war.
forest on May 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
What about the Cold War? The Soviet Bloc was a counter political ideology and peer competitor as “superpower.” The US couldn’t afford to ignore or otherwise cease communication with the USSR.
The Cold War is not analogous to the US opening unconditional talks with regimes in places like Iran because the balance of power is much different. Unlike the Soviet Union, Iran is rewarded with “credibility” when the US comes to the table- no strings attached.
highhopes on May 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Unfortunately, if this guy gets elected, it’ll be 4 years of complete hell — then, and only then, will people learn.
Richard Romano on May 9, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Investigate, negotiate, woo, and start all over again.
When we leave Iraq the Japan, South Korea, Poland, Italy,
Britian, and Australia will never trust us to come to their defense. It will facture any chance of a coalition coming together to fight Islamic extremism, let alone stand up to China or Russia.
Welcome to the new world order where passing under the yoke will be order of the day.
Limerick on May 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Plant your rice field and your date palm orchard early.
RushBaby on May 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
“Jive Talking” is becoming popular. In my local area, the radio has even picked up the Bee Gees “Jive Talking” in their rotation. Cool song, describes Obama to a tee …
“Jive Talking” means lying, it just saounds cool.
tarpon on May 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Maybe Obama could ask the Czechs how well unconditional talks worked for them during Munich. Neville Chamberlain insisted on holding peace talks to avoid war in Czechoslovakia, which could have defended itself as long as it held the fortifications in the Sudetenland long enough for Britain and France to beat Germany from the rear. Instead, Chamberlain carved up Czechoslovakia without its permission, and six months afterward, Hitler swallowed the rest of it whole. FDR, meanwhile, remained steadfastly neutral diplomatically until 1939, when he began clandestine support for the UK.
Ed, what evidence do you have to show that Obama would hold peace talks with a nation after they invaded a country?
Just because he says he’s willing to talk to our enemies, doesn’t mean he wouldn’t act strongly in the face of aggression.
It’s a very weak comparison based on basically nothing.
You also fail to note that FDR did communicate with Hitler via telegram.
Obama isn’t merely saying that he’ll reinstitute diplomatic relations with Iran, which would emulate our relations with the Nazis and the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor.
Yeah, it would also emulate our relations with the U.S.S.R. prior to the wall falling. What exactly is your point?
It seems the main substance for you tying Obama to Chamerlain is the fact that Obama says he’s willing to talk to our enemies.
There’s NO reason to believe Obama would not respond forcefully if a country like Iran invaded another country.
The US also “talked” to Russia in the 80s. Does that make Reagan like Chamberlain?
Just an incredibly weak comparison on your part Ed. Just a bunch of BS.
Tom_Shipley on May 9, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Obama does not care. He hates freedom.
indythinker on May 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Negotiations with tyrants almost always leads to appeasement, which only postpones war until the tyrant is strong enough to wage it most effectively. It results in many more deaths and far more destruction because it gives the initiative and the timing to the tyrants, while building their credibility at home.
And half the county is gonna vote for Obamberlain. Thanks to the N.E.A. for teaching our kids an upside down version of history. Your tax dollars at work.
Tony737 on May 9, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Based on this, sounds like Cindy Sheehan would be a good VP choice.
Quisp on May 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Reagan also saw the bigger picture of MAD. Don’t forget…..he walked out of Reykjavik.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Here is the new Chamberlain WITH an umbrella:
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080414/capt.cps.mxe46.140408183548.photo00.photo.default-368×512.jpg
Aristotle on May 9, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Timeless Message about the Price of Apathy towards the attacks on your own country in our case the U.S.A.
First they came…
http://imustimes.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/let-us-all-learn-by-the-example-of-martin-neimoller/
Dr Evil on May 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Words of wisdom. I agree 100%
It’s worse than Neville Chamberlain … it would be equivalent to electing Adolf Hitler Prime Minister of England.
I am convinced that Barack Obama is a domestic enemy of the United States Constitution. His “A More Perfect Union” speech revealed that. (I did an analysis of that speach here with a follow-up here.)
Red Pill on May 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
The policy of appeasement is fatal. Always. One cannot negotiate with evil and expect to come out of it unscathed. The world will pay for its appeasement with the blood of the sons and daughters. (Winston Churchill said this first and it’s still true)
There’s no reason to believe he would respond forcefully. That’s the problem – he’s so mealy mouthed about what he would and would not do that us cynics believe he would shrug and say “Oh well.” And guess what? By the time he stops negotiating and starts sending in troops, thousands of people would already be crushed under the Iranian heel. Or Israel would be nuked and everyone can (secretly) cheer. Except for us who are actual supporters of Israel.
Walk soft and carry a really big stick works for me.
mjk on May 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Oh my, that photo is nauseating. Was that taken recently?
forest on May 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
No doubt, but that doesn’t mean that Ed’s basis for comparing Obama to Chamberlain isn’t BS.
And, actually, comparing the current situation with the US and Iran (and North Korea) to the US/USSR relations in the 80s is a much better one that US/Germany relations prior to WWII, mainly because Iran has not invaded anyone. (which, actually, the Soviet Union did do in the 1980s, but we STILL talked them… doesn’t this make Reagan even MORE like Chamberlain?).
I really don’t see how
Tom_Shipley on May 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Hitler had not yet invaded any nations at the time of Munich. The problem was that Chamberlain met with a tyrant and was arm-twisted into allowing him to grab part of a country. Hitler’s treaty violations at that point involved arms production and militarizing the Rheinland.
forest on May 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Xlnt post.
Wake up, America.
PattyJ on May 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM
And I’m fairly certain, if Obama thought he could speak his mind, that he’d tell us he thinks FDR’s and Truman’s actions were wrong and reprehensible. Obama’s foreign policy is shaping up to be a lot like Carter’s, who has left us much of the bloody problems we’re facing today with the Middle East and Islamism.
Socratease on May 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
The problem was that Chamberlain met with a tyrant and was arm-twisted into allowing him to grab part of a country.
OK, I guess I was off on that. But still, there’s no proof or evidence that Obama would allow himself to be arm-twisted like Chamerlain.
I don’t think the decision to TALK to Germany prior to their invasion was a bad one, it’s just how he handled the summit.
Again, Reagan talked to the USSR. Obama wants to talk to Iran. To compare Obama to Chamberlain because of the latter point is just BS.
Tom_Shipley on May 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Obama’s reaction to Rev. Wright’s National Press Club performance shows a personality that makes the political personal, in the same way Jimmy Carter didn’t see anything that much wrong with the Soviet Union until they had the unmitigated gall to invade Afghanistan on Christmas Week of 1979, while he was dealing with the twin crisis of the Iranian hostage situation and Edward M. Kennedy that were threatening to derail his hopes for renomination and re-election in 1980. It was only then that he got mad at the Soviets and decided to show his toughness by yanking the U.S. out of the Moscow Olympics.
Obama would likely be the same — going along on cruise control until some foreign nation created a crisis that personally threatened his chances at re-election (or, if he’s really a compassionate type of guy, on the Democrats’ 2010 midterm hopes). The difference here is that with the Mutual Assured Destruction narrative of the Cold War, the threat to Americans domestically was limited, because the Soviets were not going to surprise attack the U.S. with nukes and weren’t going to risk being linked to large-scale domestic terrorism. Obama would be dealing with people who don’t have the nuke missile capability, but also have little if no qualms about trying to anonymously fund groups that would like to top 9/11’s damage.
jon1979 on May 9, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Look at that picture! Is Neville shooting us the bird?
saved on May 9, 2008 at 11:13 AM
It is only a better comparison if you are an idiot. The USSR had global reach. Germany with its allies also encompassed the entire globe. Norht Korea and Iran can only threaten locally at this time. Iran is not much of a threat to all of the nations in the area, and it can be said North Korea can only threaten South Korea and Japan as for them to threaten PRC would be foolish. So you see, Mr. Shipley, your bucket holds no water.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on May 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on May 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Mr. Ragshaft,
Let me run down Ed’s rationale for comparing Obama to Chamberlain (as far as I can tell… Ed, if you have further explaination, I’d love to hear it):
Obama says he wants to talk to your enemies. Chamberlain talked to Hitler. Thus, Obama=Chamberlain.
It’s a completely fabricated comparison only meant to paint Obama with the same brush as the much maligned Chamberlain. As I said before, there’s really no reason to believe that Obama wouldn’t act strongly in the face of aggression (Chamberlain’s real sin).
Using the same logic I think Ed is using, we can say that Reagan is Chamberlain with an IMDB page.
Tom_Shipley on May 9, 2008 at 11:19 AM
It’s also worth noting that when Obama said he would bomb inside of Pakistan if he knew where high-level AQ targets were (something the Bush administration later did), he was attacked by Ed and others on the right as being too aggressive in using force against our enemies.
Tom_Shipley on May 9, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Tom, Munich came before the invasion — in 1938. Munich allowed the invasion to succeed by stripping Czechoslovakia of its natural defenses. Why did Chamberlain give away the mountain region of the Sudetenland? Because Hitler promised that was all he would ever request in the future, and Chamberlain had to talk him into taking it.
And Pakistan is not our enemy, Tom, and it wasn’t bombing that Obama talked about. Obama said he would send troops into Pakistan without Pakistan’s permission, which in the real world is called an invasion.
Ed Morrissey on May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM
America First.
The isolationist (read libertarian/Paulnut) movement in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s. No foreign wars was it’s mantra and was a major player in the reasons Roosevelt couldn’t throw in with Europe once the war started there. It was an extremely popular position with the rank and file of American voters.
FDR’s plan was to establish a trip wire that he felt would snap the American public awake. The ‘no-war’ destroyers he set up escorting Atlantic convoys to Britian. He felt that sooner or later a u-boat skipper would give us a reason to declare war once a destroyer was on the bottom of the sea.
When the Reuben James was sunk in October 41 a battle royal took place in our capitol between the war and no-war groups.
The no-war groups won, blaming FDR for the loss, not the Germans. Not once did FDR ask Hitler if it was OK to put those destroyers in the Atlantic.
When it became obvious that Japan was preparing to attack another trip wire was set up on December 4 in the South China sea. The Japanese invasion fleet for Indo China and the Kra pennisula had been spotted moving down the coast. With FDRs approval a line of gunboat picket ships were strung across the South China sea in the hopes that Japan would sink one, giving us the excuse to go to war. As luck would have it the Japanese invasion fleet passed this picket line at night and no confrontation took place. We all know what happened on Dec 7th. We were just looking in the wrong place.
So what the hell is my point here?
FDR had balls. He knew there was no hope of NOT going to war and he planned accordingly. Obama is a eunich. There will NEVER be a line in the sand or a trip wire for some insane mullah to cross.
FDR is the kind of man I want in the oval office. Someone who isn’t controlled by a public opinion poll and air-head peace at any price cowards. You don’t gain any respect by telling the bully you are sorry for pissing him off. That is exactly what Obama is saying when he says he wants to open talks. He wants to apologize to Iran so he can start making them feel better about us. Screw that.
Limerick on May 9, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Oh come on, like Obama wasn’t even born yet in WWII!
/sarc off
max1 on May 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM
This comparison is a great example of why these things need to be addessed with a simple “no” early on. Hitler was bluffing with a weak hand in 1938. The German military was still weak and he should have been told “no”. He would have folded or been placed in a situation where he would have been at war with the Czechs, France and Britain before he had much military capability.
Iran is in a similar situation position of weakness for now, unless they are allowed to get nuclear weapons, then they can bully all they want, and other leaders will be compelled to talk to them.
At that point it would be more like the Reagan/Soviet/Afghanistan situation. Reagan inherited a position where the invasion was already underway (it began while Dhimmi Carter was President) and the aggressors had nuclear weapons. He ended up in a very weak position because of the weak leadership that came before him.
This is precisely the kind of situation we need to avoid, and I have no confidence that Obama will be able to talk Iran out of developing nuclear weapons.
forest on May 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Mr. Shipley:
Your entire strained defense of Senator Obama is nothing more than an attempt to direct us away from his own words. HE was the one who cited Roosevelt, implying that Roosevelt talked to Hitler/Tojo. Well, FDR didn’t. The only person who fell into that trap (and that’s exactly what it was) was the unfortunate Neville Chamberlain. It is thus fair to look at the consequences of that misguided attempt to negotiate with someone who is not acting in good faith.
It is also instructive to note that when Kennedy, the third of Senator Obama’s shining examples, talked to Krushchev, the result was very nearly World War III. Krushchev, sizing up the inexperienced Kennedy in Vienna, concluded that he was a lightweight and could be pushed around. The result was the Cuban missile crisis.
No one can seriously doubt that the appraisals of the even less experienced and more naive Barack Obama by such thugs as Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be even more dangerous to the peace and stability of the world, and the national interests of the United States.
HTL on May 9, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Would it require much additional technology for North Korea to use a ballistic missile to hit an American city in Alaska? More of a concern though would be the cash-starved North Koreans selling nuclear material to a terrorist organization that could hand deliver a bomb to the continental U.S.
dedalus on May 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
To be fair, Obama also has a policy of unconditional surrender–for the United States.
ReubenJCogburn on May 9, 2008 at 11:45 AM
HE was the one who cited Roosevelt, implying that Roosevelt talked to Hitler/Tojo. Well, FDR didn’t.
FDR talked, or communicated, with Hitler via telegram.
Tom_Shipley on May 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
By the way,
Here is Obama’s stance on Iran:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Tom_Shipley on May 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I agree with you on Kennedy. The lead up to WWII is interesting though. Chamberlain was ultimately wrong but he was in a more difficult position than people think. He had the following concerns:
1.) His country had lost nearly a generation of young men in the Great War.
2.) Many strategists in London felt that the Soviets were a greater threat than the Germans.
3.) Most felt that the Treaty of Versailles was overly harsh, though its main damage had already been done with rise of Hitler.
4.) The British army was in a weakened state.
5.) Stopping Hitler probably would have required an invasion and occupation of Berlin, something the Brits and French couldn’t do during the Great War.
6.) An invasion of Germany in 1938 or earlier probably wouldn’t have brought America into the war.
dedalus on May 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Obama’s foreign policy:
1. Speak softly and carry no stick of any size.
2. All carrots and no stick.
3. If terrorist nations act as if they like us,..that’s all that counts.
4. The only bombing to be be allowed should be done by the Weathermen. Targets yet to be determined.
a capella on May 9, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I just keep coming back to my basic question: What is the value of negotiating with someone whose goal is conquest?
Blaise on May 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Tarpon’s “jive talking” says it best.
Personally I don’t think Obama has a foreign policy outlook aside from Che t-shirts. What I am certain of is, he has formulated a “jive” anti Bush/neocon/repub verbal stream which he wooes his base with at stump speeches. His supporters and the press are already tilting that way before he opens his mouth resulting in rave reviews.
If Bush won’t talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah etc, Obama says he will. Will he actually? Probably not once he’s in the White House. Any Democrat who takes office now will inherit conditions that will shape them into the new Nixon. (Hillary already has her ‘enemies’ list). Remember old Dicky was going to end Johnson’s war. Five years later when he gave his famous goodbye wave the war raged on.
What we will have in an Obama presidency is a gifted orator who will shuck and jive his way from one stumble to another. He will be the first black Clinton!
It will be for the Congress to prevent any craziness from passing into law. Now there’s a scary thought.
patrick neid on May 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM
excellent comment from ZR last night
funky chicken on May 9, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Chamberlain was told by the British military’s chiefs of staff that they needed one year to prepare for war with Germany, or they had no chance of success (Battles lost and won: great campaigns of World War II by Hanson). What was he supposed to do? He got a bum rap for acceding to the request of his military experts. People should stop tarnishing his memory.
Akzed on May 9, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Maybe Obama will open negotiations on behalf of HA readers to convince HA that that VeriSign ad HAS TO GO.
Rigga-fratta-ragga-rigga.
Limerick on May 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I think you’re too optimistic. I believe we have clear evidence that Obama is a hard core leftist with serious father and anger issues, who associates with people who believe that the USA and her white citizens deserve punishment for past misdeeds.
Yet many “conservatives” seem to share his anger because the GOP primary process didn’t go their way, and somehow think major damage to the nation will help their “conservative movement.”
funky chicken on May 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Obama is worse than Chamberlain, for reasons noted by other posters already
funky chicken on May 9, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Uhm. What about the fact that he wants to surrender in Iraq?
Iran has, for all intents and purposes, invaded Iraq. Bambi wants to talk to Iran, and surrender in Iraq.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
misterpeasea on May 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Exactly, and the Iranians will utilize the time they gain from the “negotiations” (negotiations that will be futile as peaceful co-existence with the West is not in their negotiating vocabulary) to further their nuke program and firm up their plans to get rid of “little Satan” (Israel) and “big Satan” (America).
Obama is naive and will be selling us down the river by his “negotiating” with our sworn enemies thus placing us in a position of weakness while our enemies get stronger!
Obama is Chamberlain and Carter all rolled into one big appeasing pacifist and that is the last thing we need in a POTUS at this time and place in our history.
God help us if Obama is elected…
Liberty or Death on May 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM
How about “not appease”? How about not ceding Europes natural defenses? How about making it clear that he’d back his allies, instead of doing just the opposite? How about not talking up Hitler’s fervent desire for peace?
Because you know, when England actually did declare war, they did nothing for months. The English called it a fake war during that time.
misterpeasea on May 9, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Ummm….Isn’t some of that what we have been trying to accomplish with the UN? Every time sanctions are mentioned they are blocked from Russia and China. How does Obama get around the Russian-Sino alliance?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 9, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Obamanation was on with Wolf Blitzer yesterday. Wolf asked him to respond to Mav’s claim that he had no experience. Once again, the Messiah fell back on his judgment. Unfortunately, Wolf did not ask him to provide examples of his good judgment, like maybe in picking a church or the location to launch your candidacy.
Kafir on May 9, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Tom Shipley:
I don’t understand why Obama apologists continue to bring up Reagan’s negotiation in the 1980s. Reagan wasn’t just talking to Gorbachov, he was negotiating the terms of the Soviet surrender. Those negotiations were by no means the equivalent of the Munich conference where Hitler was dictating terms to France and Great Britain.
Obama’s sympathies lay with the dictators of China, Iran and its surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. When he talks about restoring respect for the US he means that we should transfer our allegiance from freely elected governments around the world to these dictatorships.
jerryofva on May 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM
The British were not well prepared for a ground war in 1938, and the RN was not in the best shape either. It was, however, much stronger than the Kriegsmarine in 1938. Ane the Wehrmacht was fairly pitiful at that time. The
Britsh could have contrlled the seas, and blockaded Germany while the French, Czechs and Poles invaded. Those are the allies he needed to to talking srongly to in 1938 rather than talking weakly with Hitler.
forest on May 9, 2008 at 12:24 PM
With regards to talking to our enemies, Obama is the one who will gut the military first, then proceed to talk ‘in good faith’.
Not FDR nor Truman. America was in an exponential build up in weapon race. Kennedy was in no position to do that.
I don’t trust this messiah, and have no faith in his ability to bring about our enemy.
Sir Napsalot on May 9, 2008 at 12:27 PM
B-b-b-b-but, Immigration is the top priority…Isn’t it?
Aren’t we staying home on election day, because Foreign Policy is a fart in a hurricane?…And, McCain is a poopy-head.
And, Mexicans are the most profound threat to America?
It appears, this blog, and a few others I don’t need to mention, take delight in the split in the Democrats Party, but don’t seem to realize the split they’re creating in the party with the strongest position on Foreign Policy.
As far as I’m concerned, you can take your immigration “issue” and shove it.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 12:28 PM
The Americans also took longer than some wanted to invade Europe. Taking heavy casualties or getting pushed back into the sea were concerns that weighed heavily on the commanders.
dedalus on May 9, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Also, in 1938 Hitler’s generals were telling him they would be ready for war in 1941 at the earliest – even later for the navy. And they were right, but Hitler managed to bluff and divide/conquer his way around Germany’s relative weakness in the early years of the war.
forest on May 9, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Great, he could have done all that and provoked Germany to attack Great Britain a year before she was ready to defend herself. Sometimes in acting in your own country’s best interest you have to let other countries take their lumps.
So had he ignored his cheifs of staff and antagonized Hitler and started the war before GB was ready, he would now be known as the ultimate example of belligerence trumping war-planning.
Akzed on May 9, 2008 at 12:33 PM
“It’s also worth noting that when Obama said he would bomb inside of Pakistan if he knew where high-level AQ targets were (something the Bush administration later did), he was attacked by Ed and others on the right as being too aggressive in using force against our enemies.”
Tom_Shipley on May 9, 2008 at 11:28 AM
We had already been carrying out operations in Pakistan when Obama made his assertion that he would “INVADE” Pakistan.
OK, just to make it easy, here’s the money quote (I generally prefer for people to click through to the link so they get the gist of the entire piece):
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them “on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
Just like Obama’s own advisors have stated that being in
Iraq for 100 years or more is an indication of success,something Mr.”change” has been twisting the words of McCain and attacking him for:
A Century in Iraq, if it works right: Obama adviser
posted at 7:00 am on March 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/22/a-century-in-iraq-if-it-works-right-obama-adviser/
Yesterday I noted the accusation of McCarthyism against Bill Clinton by Barack Obama military adviser Gen. Tony McPeak. The former Air Force Chief of Staff has a history of interesting statements, including a couple at the beginning of the war both McPeak and Obama oppose. In an interview with the Oregonian, posted here but confirmed by me through its purchase from the archives,
This puts Obama’s supposed honesty in perspective:
Obama Twists John McCain’s Words and Attacks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WynLgJFBxSs
Obama Adviser Suggests Up to 80,000 Troops Remain in Iraq By 2010
by FOXNews.com
Friday, April 4, 2008
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/04/obama-adviser-suggests-up-to-80000-troops-remain-in-iraq-by-2010/
And we already know that Samantha Powers (fired Obama advisor) has already stated that Obama will “re-assess”
the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan when he becomes president,not hold himself to what he has stated on the campaign trail.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6001af15-399f-4b11-b7fb-6f52baca6bcc
WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS OBAMA. OH,MY FAULT, IT’S ELECTION
SEASON:
Indeed, for more than two years after the 2003 invasion, Obama emphasized America’s moral and strategic obligations in Iraq. “The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he told reporters in July 2004. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. … It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020243.php
As Peter Wehner has shown, Obama’s lack of seriousness about the second war with Iraq has been just as shocking and far more sustained.
Unfortunately, comparing this poser to Jimmy Carter actually hurts Carter if that is possible.
I agree with FDR’s approach when it comes to the enemies of
Freedom:
http://www.usmm.org/fdr/rattlesnake.html
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat to the Nation, September 11, 1941
“When You See a Rattlesnake Poised to Strike, You Do Not Wait Until He Has Struck Before You Crush Him”
Baxter Greene on May 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Barry should have read a little more Churchill and little less Marx.
It scares the crap out me thinking that this guy might be in office when radical tyrants, bent on our our destruction, will have completed nuclear weaponization. And he thinks diplomacy/talks will work? We better restart the “Tuck, duck and roll” programs. I’ll be moving west of the city.
Over30 on May 9, 2008 at 12:36 PM
dedalus:
I would like to address your very thoughtful (but ultimately incorrect) points regarding the run-up to WWII.
In 1938, if Britain was in a weakened state, it was almost entirely because of the programme of disarmament that Chamberlain had been pushing since the 1920’s. His career, first as Minister of Health and later as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was totally focused on cutting military expenditures in favor of domestic programs and the defense of Britain’s credit rating. (Another Obama parallel! Oh goody!) It is also worth noting that he also participated in the political attacks on Churchill which labeled Churchill, not Hitler, as the real “warmonger”.
However, even under these circumstances, the main bulwark against Germany was the French army, still at that time the strongest in the world. Backing it up would have been the Czech army, another 35 divisions poised closer to Berlin than the Allies ever got in WWI. All they needed to win was for Britain not to sell them out.
Furthermore, by 1938 the world already had ample proof of Hitler’s bad faith in negotiations and aggressive tendencies. His remilitarization of the Rhineland had been followed by the annihilation of Austria in 1936.
It was under these circumstances that Chamberlain flew to Munich, allowed himself to be bullied by Hitler, and threw the Czechs (who were not even allowed to attend the Munich conference!) under the bus. His fatuous statements about Hitler being “a man he could do business with” and proclaiming “peace in our time” were just the icing on the cake.
His mismanagement of the opening phases of WWII was also something for the history books, which, however, I will not go into here.
Obama’s lack of understanding of history and his willingness to sit down with dictators for “peace in our time” are evocative of nothing so much as Chamberlain.
The funniest play on Neville Chamberlain’s name, by the way, is Never Chainberlin. I wonder if we can do anything similar with Barack Obama.
HTL on May 9, 2008 at 12:37 PM
- From the introductory monologue to The Road Warrior
If one wants to see how well jawboning the Iranians into better behavior works, just take a look at how much success the Europeans have been having for the past several years. Yeah, right.
But what makes Obama even worse is that he’s not thinking of talking to get the Iranian mullahs, the North Korean communist monarch and the Venezuelan tin-pot thug to change the error of their ways; the reverse is true. He wants to show the tyrants that it’s America that is ready to do humble penance, to supplicate, to grovel, to cast its allies over the cliff.
Neville Chamberlain perhaps had the excuse of not knowing where the road of appeasement led to. With Chamberlain’s results there for all to see, Obama has no excuse for traveling the same path. Yet he swears that he’ll do just that.
It’s of a piece with folks of the hard left, however: when others point out that the “Revolutionary Ideal” has ended in disaster every time it’s been tried, they always reply, “Yeah, but those people didn’t do it properly. We’ll get it right this time!” And Obama is nothing if not a man of the hard left.
Nikita Kruschev had Obama’s ilk pegged 50 years ago: “A man thrusts a bayonet into the darkness. If he hits mush, he keeps pushing. If he hits steel, he pulls back.” How bitterly ironic it’ll be in the catastrophic event of a Messiah presidency to recall the famous headline from the Carter Dark Age: “More Mush From The Wimp.”
Spurius Ligustinus on May 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Yep.
Uh, franks, McCain is dead wrong in immigration. His La Raza appearance may just aid and abet the Obama election, which as an active duty military wife just freaks me out more than you can imagine.
I’m voting for McCain, as is my entire family, but he is just dead wrong on immigration. Trying to belittle it as an issue is a huge mistake on his and your part.
funky chicken on May 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM
post deserves repost…
B-b-b-b-but, Immigration is the top priority…Isn’t it?
Aren’t we staying home on election day, because Foreign Policy is a fart in a hurricane?…And, McCain is a poopy-head.
And, Mexicans are the most profound threat to America?
It appears, this blog, and a few others I don’t need to mention, take delight in the split in the Democrats Party, but don’t seem to realize the split they’re creating in the party with the strongest position on Foreign Policy.
As far as I’m concerned, you can take your immigration “issue” and shove it.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 12:28 PM
In the words of Ed McMahon “You are CORRECT Sir!”
max1 on May 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I’ve heard many excuses for Chamberlain…One of the most common is, “they weren’t ready for war.”
But, that argument holds no water, when you ask WHY.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I would like to hope Obama would at least have the courage to fight once the fight he potentially stalls for so long to avoid through useless negotiation with a tyrant lands on one of our allies (Israel most likely) but it’ll be too late for hundreds of thousands if not millions of Israeli citizens when that happens.
Yakko77 on May 9, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Obama’s theme: Surrender in our times
I’m sure that Obama would return from his negotiations with Caliph AhmadInJihad with favorable terms allowing at least a three month grace period for conversion to Islam and, for those who choose not to, to put aside money before starting to pay the jizya.
Annar on May 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Comes a time, when you have to prioritize your issues.
And, if McCain and Obama are on the same page, the issue is moot.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Germany was even more poorly prepared – at least three years out in 1938 according the the OKH – they were just more aggressive, so they got their way.
forest on May 9, 2008 at 12:49 PM
What’s tough about any of that?
Yakko77 on May 9, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating…
Comprehensive Immigration Reform is DOA…No matter WHO is elected.
It was SOUNDLY defeated before…It would be SOUNDLY defeated if it rears it’s ugly head AGAIN.
It’s off the table…Kaput…Get it outta’ your li’l pea-brains…It’s not an “issue”
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Chamberlain was acting on his top military advice. I’m not saying they were right, but we are only more right than they were by benefit of hindsight.
Akzed on May 9, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Just a bunch of BS?
Just? I dunno.
But it sure does seem to be an awful lot of finished product that was produced given the amount of raw material that was furnished by Obama.
MB4 on May 9, 2008 at 1:05 PM
So Obama is trying to talk Mahmoud into occupying the Sudetenland? Or some mountain region someplace? Heavens to Mercatroid! I sure hope it’s not the Cascades.
They sure seem to be giving sanctuary to Al Q so I don’t think that makes them all that friendly myself. But wait, Saudi Arabians give lots of money to Al Q but Bush says that the Saudis are our friends, so never mind, I guess.
I would lay you dollars to donuts that we already have sent troops into Pakistan. We have certainly sent ordinance into Pakistan.
MB4 on May 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM
.
That ignores history. Military planners build ‘models’ based on ideal conditions. Hitler was told by his naval advisers that an effective Kreigsmarine could be built by 1945, and he could afford to have a European war at that time. Using this as a defense of Chamberlain ignores just how closely he parallels Obama; namely a politician who spends his time trying to undercut the military, increase government power over its own citizenry, and a desire to “talk” with your enemies, by sacrificing a small portion and exposing your weakness, instead of negotiating from offense. If you are confronted by a lion, and allow it to eat your leg, how are you better off? If the lion enjoys the leg, he will come back for more…..
Think_b4_speaking on May 9, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Take a look at comment #12 what this commentor equates Martin Neimoller’s message to The War on Drugs and The War on Terror! Incredible See no Evil,Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil.
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/giant-rebuttals-about-god/
Dr Evil on May 9, 2008 at 1:27 PM
The La Raza folks are basically a hispanic version of a New Black Panthers, IMHO, and they are a threat. McCain should not speak at their convention…even though Karl Rove has done so before apparently, and Graham has done so.
Wrong is wrong. I’m voting for McCain but going to LaRaza could cost him the election, even running against Obama.
funky chicken on May 9, 2008 at 1:32 PM
To Tom Shipley: Obama plans to bring back the whole Jimmy Carter foreign policy team, even ancient Zbig Brzenski.
Carter began his presidency by announcing that the US was “over its inordinate fear of Communism”. Leonid Brezhnev took Carter’s measure and knew that the Soviets could walk all over Carter. And the Soviets did precisely that. Carter’s Secretary of State, the late Cyrus Vance, spent most of his time apologizing to the Soviets, apologizing to the Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos and begging Haffez Assad to be nicey nice with the US.
Given that Obama plans to bring back the whole Carter foreign policy team, we can look forward to four years of the President of the United States blaming America first. Appeasement, thy name is Barack.
Larraby on May 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before anything changes. Is this one of those times? If Obama becomes President, I would wager, YES!!
PappaMac on May 9, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Not quite accurate.
if Neville Chamberlain had behaved like Obama does he would have come home wearing a swastika lapel pin and signing Horst Wessel Lied.
Nahanni on May 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Since “we” are playing kind of loosey goosey with the historical comparisons, wouldn’t McCain going to meet with la Raza be kind of like Chamberlain meeting with Hitler? And if McCain wets their appetite, won’t they just want more?
MB4 on May 9, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I agree. It could well tip the scales. He’s apparently gambling the Hispanic gain will offset the pro-enforcement vote/support. I think it is a bad gamble.
a capella on May 9, 2008 at 1:56 PM
So what? He would have been the only one NOT to support it had he not do. And, there wouldn’t even have been a war to support had he not had the middle name “appeasement”.
RMCS_USN on May 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Gee…I’d hate to think a Mexican would vote for McCain.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Heh! Harsh words and strong language always work against theocratic nut jobs and dictators. Didn’t you know that. If things escalate I’ll bet BO might even write a letter or two.
Oldnuke on May 9, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »